A planning application for the demolished Frogmore site is now public. It proposes a 120 bed aged care facility. The site is just under 8000 square metres, yet according to the plans is NOT big enough to ensure that all aspects of the requirements for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone are met. Even worse is that dozens upon dozens of healthy trees are to be removed. Here are some of the proposals –
- Of the 92 trees on site, Jewish Care wants to remove 88
- Only 38 car parking spots will be provided on site (plus 2 ‘drop off’ sites). This is despite the fact that the proposal states – “ Total number of staff is expected to be around 100 Full Time Equivalent (FTE), while the maximum number of staff on duty at peak times is projected to be around 45 people”.
- Failure to reach the required ‘permeability’ requirements is stated to be a ‘minor variation’, as is site coverage. Incredible for 8000 square metres of land!
The plans themselves are incredibly short on detail such as providing actual dimensions, whilst the so called traffic report can be challenged time and time again. What did catch our attention is this gem from the arborist’s report – Development changes the use of an area, adding buildings, infrastructure and people to the landscape. This increases the potential for trees to cause damage to people and property. Therefore, trees that are structurally poor or that have a short life expectancy are generally unsuitable for retention on development sites.
So, this is justification for removing 88 trees – many of which are ‘significant’. Here is the list of trees to be removed. Please note the number that even the developer’s arborist sees as ‘healthy’ and of ‘high significance’. Of course, with a council that has no tree protection policies and facilitates as much moon-scaping as possible, the applicant is definitely on solid ground.
What will be fascinating is:
- Will Magee be present at voting time? Will the ‘decision’ deliberately be delayed so that Magee in all likelihood will no longer be mayor and thus cannot use his vote twice as Pilling did?
- Will Esakoff have ‘resolved’ her conflict of interest issues and her ‘close relative’ have found a place in the meantime?
- And has the decision already been made and this will end up at VCAT – due to objectors and not council decision?
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Glen Eira Debates 
October 3, 2015 at 10:52 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/munzer-house-rejects-claims-its-care-is-below-standard-20121111-296gd.html
http://www.jewishnews.net.au/jewish-care-under-fire/28112
October 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Well, it looks like we lost a heritage building to (MODERATORS: deleted) for profit
I’m not a least bit surprised by these allegations.
(MODERATORS: paragraph deleted)
I can understand Hyams and Lipshuzt’s angle pushing hard for the home, but Phillings bend over backwards act, is still an unexplained mystery.
Maybe he’ll come on to your website and explain himself, I would be interested to hear
I’m betting he’s to much of a coward to explain
October 3, 2015 at 6:31 PM
Have a look at the dates – planning permit application 17/6/2015, decision to ignore their own heritage expert and vote to demolish 9/6/2015.
Says heaps about integrity doesn’t it.
October 3, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Traffic report is a joke. Quick and dirty job cos they didn’t want to spend any money and know it’s in the bag.
October 5, 2015 at 9:08 AM
To start off building a aged care facility by destroying something old like the Frogmore home is going to be very bad khama,destroying living trees to make a boring concrete outlook for the oldies, will destroy their quality of their twilight years.
This place is doomed to (MODERATORS: part of sentence deleted), from a community of people that should know better.
I (couldn’t) place any family member of mine there
October 5, 2015 at 12:35 PM
The whole process concerning this development smells. The Heritage Overlay was thwarted by Cr Pilling who clearly had prejudged the subsequent application for a 120-bed aged care facility, quoting from it before it had officially been lodged. Thus something irrelevant to Heritage Overlay criteria was misused with the specific intent of facilitating the current proposal. I expect any councillor who prejudged the application to declare a conflict of interest. As things stand it is not in a preferred location, being in a Minimal Change area, and doesn’t meet the amenity standards of NRZ1 and s55. That’s curious, since for NRZ “a development must meet the requirements of Clause 55” and in s55 “a standard contains the requirements”.
October 5, 2015 at 1:51 PM
Smell is too nice a word. What we’ve got here is an absolute stench that covers all – from a lousy report to very convenient conflict of interest declarations, to inopportune absences, which left the main culprits to get the numbers. Mind, this was in the face of professional heritage advice which cost us as ratepayers plus 1000 or so signatures and a council resolution that was chucked out the window when the amendment was abandoned. Lipshutz and Hyams must have been pretty busy organising all this. Pilling does what he is told so no problems there. Clever, devious and completely unethical,
October 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM
Congratulations to the MRC for just completing a double hat trick. Yep for 6 consecutive years they have failed to notify residents of proposed road closures during the Spring Racing Carnival which starts on 10/10/2015.
You wouldn’t think it would be a hard thing to do but apparently the MRC finds it so.
Hard to say if this years f*ck up is to do with incorrect content or failure to comply with the 10 day resident notification period or a combination of both because residents are yet to receive the notification.
October 5, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Council should be able to answer all your questions: whether a Permit was granted; what conditions are on the Permit; whether the applicant is complying with the conditions; who granted the Permit; what information was supplied in support of the Permit [eg resident consent]; diagrams for where the barriers are to go; how long they are to be in place; and the estimated fee MRC is being charged for their occupancy based on $157 + $2.40 per square metre per day.
October 6, 2015 at 6:39 AM
The hand delivered notification (addressed “TO THE RESIDENT”) appeared in residents mailboxes yesterday (5/10/2015) and is dated 30/9/2015. Obviously, credibility is being stretched.
Yep, Council should be able to answer all questions but past experience tells me that when dealing with Council there is a vast difference between should and will.
October 5, 2015 at 5:03 PM
My jewish mates tell me its just gone the day of atonement. Betyas the buggers have got plenty to atone for
October 5, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Quite incongruous that of the four trees that are to remain two of them are rated as only being in fair condition. Scores that will be removed are rated as good. All our values are upside down.
October 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM
Nothing incongruous in the fact that the trees, identified in the heritage advisors report as being potentially significant, are included in the “to be removed” listing.
After all, that same heritage advisors report expressly stated that Council should give Frogmore House heritage protection and it’s gone.
The whole Frogmore story is one of a done deal and despicable Councillor behaviour.
‘Fessing up about the mass removal of tree’s is a public relations exercise that doesn’t come anywhere near to addressing the residents anger over Frogmore’s loss.
October 6, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Looks like Frogmore has gone the same way as Tudor Court in Caulfield. There is no heritage protection in Glen Eira, especially when Esakoff is involved.
October 8, 2015 at 12:37 PM
Does anyone know of the voting pattern? Was it unanimously?
October 8, 2015 at 2:24 PM
Magee was absent and both Delahunty and Esakoff declared conflicts of interest and didn’t partake of the vote. Pilling assumed the chair as the most recent ex-mayor given that Magee and Delahunty were absent. Lobo, Sounness and Okotel voted against abandoning the amendment. Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling vote to abandon. Thus the vote stood at 3 all. Pilling then used his casting vote to sign the death knell for the amendment.